Allowed

N.Sikkandar Mydeen, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Jan 2013CRL OP(MD)/441/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to four petitioners accused of dowry harassment under IPC and relevant state laws, subject to conditions including executing a bond and appearing before police daily for three days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on anticipatory bail conditioned on bond execution with two sureties and daily police appearance for three days.

N.Sikkandar Mydeen, Vs the Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Friday, the Eleventh day of January Two Thousand Thirteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice C.T.SELVAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.441 of 2013

1.N.SIKKANDAR MYDEEN

2.NAGOOR PITCHAI

3.NAZEERA

4.SAHUL ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Vs

¶10

STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MADURAI TOWN, MADURAI CITY.(CR.NO.3/2013) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S. M.MURALI Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : MR. P.JOTHI, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 506(ii) of I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 4 and 5 of Tamil Nadu Woman Harassment Act in Crime No.3 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police and hence, they have come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant was solemnised on 03.10.2010 and the allegation against the petitioners is that they demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/- from the de-facto complainant and since the same was not paid, the de-facto complainant was driven out of matrimonial home.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the de-facto complainant voluntarily left the matrimonial home without informing the first petitioner/husband and her in-laws also. He further submits that the de-facto complainant preferred a complaint against the petitioners on 11.07.2012 before the respondent police and the respondent police enquired the same and returned all the jewels and articles to the de-facto complainant and the same was recorded by the respondent police. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant withdrew her complaint and she went along with her parents due to some ill-health and she did not return back to her matrimonial home.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

¶21

inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail, of course, subject to certain conditions.

¶22

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in

¶23

the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of three days and thereafter as and when required. sd/11/01/2013

¶24

/ TRUE COPY /

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶26

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶27

Madurai - 625 023.

¶28

¶29

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, MADURAI

¶30

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI

¶31

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MADURAI TOWN, MADURAI CITY.

¶32

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶33

+1. CC to M/S. M.MURALI Advocate SR.No.1721

¶34

TR : 22.01.2013 : 2p/6c

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.Sikkandar Mydeen, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Sikkandar Mydeen, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Esakki Muthu, Vs the Inspector of Police

Suresh Vs the Inspector of Police

Ponnusamy Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Thangarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Viji, Vs the Inspector of Police

Gowtham Vs the Inspector of Police